Evangelical Christianity

Dudess

I watched the documentary Jesus Camp earlier tonight and thought it was excellent but was also disturbed by it. Just wondering: what are the views of Christians here concerning evangelicalism? Does the idea of being associated with it appall you, or do you think some of it is spot-on?

Húrin

Evangelical Christianity is a movement that covers a broad range of Protestant denominations. It emerged in the past 150 years or so as a middle-way between liberal Christian churches (that is, those who embraced doctrines that departed from the Bible, such as universal salvation) and Fundamentalism (reductionist, literal reading of the Bible).

I go to an evangelical church, which is Baptist by denomination.

In the popular mind, "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are near-synonyms for right-wing Christians from America. Most of these people are not fundamentalists, but evangelicals.

Their political views in my opinion have little to do with their religion and more to do with peculiarities of American (consumer) culture. For instance, some three quarters of them think that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible. This is called the prosperity gospel; it is a false superstition, but unfortunately widely followed.

The political views of myself and most other evangelicals I know are decidedly to the left of right-wing Christians from America.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

I watched the documentary Jesus Camp earlier tonight and thought it was excellent but was also disturbed by it. Just wondering: what are the views of Christians here concerning evangelicalism? Does the idea of being associated with it appall you, or do you think some of it is spot-on?

I have Evangelical friends here. They seem a lot different from the people portrayed in that documentary, actually I've even attended one of their churches nearby as my friend was being baptised once.

As Húrin says don't base your opinions of the entire Evangelical community on a few in the United States.

robindch

Dudess wrote: »

Just wondering: what are the views of Christians here concerning evangelicalism? Does the idea of being associated with it appall you, or do you think some of it is spot-on?

I'm no longer a christian, but ten or twelve years ago when I was, I did pop along one evening, at the invitation of a friend to an evangelical jamboree in Mosney organized by the Evangelical Congress of Ireland (or something similar). It certainly wasn't as extreme as Jesus Camp -- this was Ireland, after all -- but that wasn't for any significant lack of effort on the part of the organizers.

I abandoned the conference and my friend during the first meeting, must have been about an hour in, when the thousand or so people who were there, all began to ululate at random at the top of their voices, with a sizable portion falling over the chairs and onto the floors, suffering violent, spastic-like seizures. It was really quite a visceral display of mass lunacy.

calahans

Húrin wrote: »

In the popular mind, "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are near-synonyms for right-wing Christians from America. Most of these people are not fundamentalists, but evangelicals.

Their political views in my opinion have little to do with their religion and more to do with peculiarities of American (consumer) culture. For instance, some three quarters of them think that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible. This is called the prosperity gospel; it is a false superstition, but unfortunately widely followed.

I disagree, their views are clearly based on their religion. Going off about abortion, homosexuality and other sins. When you hear these guys they are so intolerant of other people views, you really just get a feeling of deep fear and resentment from them.

Lets not forget that George Bush is often 'told' things by God, that why he had to free the Iraqi people :eek:... and torture people in prisons without trials. I just wish God would talk to him about Darfur or the Congo

neuro-praxis

Dudess, evangelicalism in Ireland looks very little like the nutjobs in Jesus Camp.

This might help you understand what it is, although the spectrum is so broad a wiki article doesn't quite cover it.

This, although not a great website, is a great organisation.

I attend a Presbyterian church (Maynooth Community Church) and we are evangelicals. We're not scary; I promise. Nobody falls over or has spastic seizures...

Well, except the spastics, but surely they're allowed?

neuro-praxis

calahans wrote: »

I disagree, their views are clearly based on their religion. Going off about abortion, homosexuality and other sins.

Nonsense; there's a world of difference between basing political attitudes on faith and using religion as a means of justifying political attitudes.

PDN

calahans wrote: »

I disagree, their views are clearly based on their religion. Going off about abortion, homosexuality and other sins. When you hear these guys they are so intolerant of other people views, you really just get a feeling of deep fear and resentment from them.

Lets not forget that George Bush is often 'told' things by God, that why he had to free the Iraqi people :eek:... and torture people in prisons without trials. I just wish God would talk to him about Darfur or the Congo

Of course George Bush is not a member of an evangelical church. Bill Clinton, however, is a member of an evangelical church.

Also, the report that God told him to invade Iraq (originally reported by a Palestinian negotiator) was denied by both the White House and the Palestinian Authority. However, that does not stop those who are too lazy to check their information from repeating it as if it were fact.

Incidentally, I think killing unborn babies is wrong. That is, I guess, intolerant of those who demand the right to kill unborn babies - but quite tolerant towards the babies themselves. I am also intolerant of those who wish to sexually abuse children or commit genocide.

As with most evangelicals I believe homosexual acts are incompatible with true Christianity and so should not be praticed by church members. I would not dream of hindering non-Christians from practicing homsexuality. So I am intolerant of homosexuals to exactly the same extent that the Vegetarian Society is intolerant of those who eat meat.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

As with most evangelicals I believe homosexual acts are incompatible with true Christianity and so should not be practiced by church members. I would not dream of hindering non-Christians from practicing homosexuality. So I am intolerant of homosexuals to exactly the same extent that the Vegetarian Society is intolerant of those who eat meat.

I think the topic here seems to be leaning away from Evangelicalism par se, but toward Evangelical extremism. I would not dream of lumping people like you in with the latter.

calahans

There have been many people who have reported that GB did talk to them about being told by god to do acts, but I do concede that he hasnt made them publicly (as far as I know).

PDN wrote: »

Incidentally, I think killing unborn babies is wrong. That is, I guess, intolerant of those who demand the right to kill unborn babies - but quite tolerant towards the babies themselves.

At what point do you define a baby - from the instance of conception? Abortion tends to be a very early stage in development, and I would counter that the foetus is not a baby. What about the life of the person who is sentient i.e. the parent? Do you not care about them?

PDN wrote: »

I am also intolerant of those who wish to sexually abuse children or commit genocide.

Who isin't?

PDN wrote: »

As with most evangelicals I believe homosexual acts are incompatible with true Christianity and so should not be praticed by church members. I would not dream of hindering non-Christians from practicing homsexuality. So I am intolerant of homosexuals to exactly the same extent that the Vegetarian Society is intolerant of those who eat meat.

But the problem is that the right wing church want to get law enacted on their beliefs and get them forced on non believers, who want to terminate a pregnancy or have homosexual relations. If the option is there then people who want these things can do them, and those who think that God will send them to the firey place can not do them.

calahans

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Nonsense; there's a world of difference between basing political attitudes on faith and using religion as a means of justifying political attitudes.

Religion is based on faith, therefore if you use religion to justifying political attitudes you are using faith to justify political attitudes.

neuro-praxis

calahans wrote: »

Religion is based on faith, therefore if you use religion to justifying political attitudes you are using faith to justify political attitudes.

No.

Religion is a systemic way of viewing faith that holds tightly to moral codes and ritualistic practices.

Faith is a leap into the dark in exploring relationship with God. Religious practices sometimes emerge from faith but a transforming faith rarely (if ever) emerges from religious behaviours.

I have political attitudes that are coloured by faith, but I would never use religion as a means of justifying my attitudes. Neither would I try to attempt to impose Christian values on anyone who wasn't a Christian. What would the point of that be? That's trying to force others into religious behaviours rather than inviting them to a faith relationship.

MrPudding

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I have political attitudes that are coloured by faith, but I would never use religion as a means of justifying my attitudes. Neither would I try to attempt to impose Christian values on anyone who wasn't a Christian. What would the point of that be? That's trying to force others into religious behaviours rather than inviting them to a faith relationship.

That is very reassuring however, I don't think it is you that calahans is worried about.

MrP

Húrin

calahans wrote: »

I disagree, their views are clearly based on their religion. Going off about abortion, homosexuality and other sins. When you hear these guys they are so intolerant of other people views, you really just get a feeling of deep fear and resentment from them.

But what about big issues like the environment, war, the economy, and immigration? Their views are usually completely unbiblical.

BrianCalgary

Húrin wrote: »

But what about big issues like the environment, war, the economy, and immigration? Their views are usually completely unbiblical.

Whoa this is certainly a broad sweeping brush.

PDN

calahans wrote: »

At what point do you define a baby - from the instance of conception? Abortion tends to be a very early stage in development, and I would counter that the foetus is not a baby. What about the life of the person who is sentient i.e. the parent? Do you not care about them?.

I don't pretend to know at what point human life begins. I believe it is probably after conception - but certainly well before delivery.

Yes, I do care for parents and am certainly opposed to killing them also! However, my caring for parents (curious you use that word since it implies the foetus is already a child) does not mean that I think they have the right to kill their baby for reasons of convenience (which covers many, probably most, abortions).

But the problem is that the right wing church want to get law enacted on their beliefs and get them forced on non believers, who want to terminate a pregnancy or have homosexual relations. If the option is there then people who want these things can do them, and those who think that God will send them to the firey place can not do them.

No, the problem is that you are trying to equate 'the right wing church' with evangelicalism as a whole. Most evangelicals I know are somewhat left-leaning politically and certainly have no desire to criminalise homosexuality.

TravelJunkie

PDN wrote: »

I don't pretend to know at what point human life begins. I believe it is probably after conception - but certainly well before delivery.


Off subject, but looking at stages of pregnancy I think that the foetus is a person but not necessarily the embryo, which would be the fertilised seed. However the embryo is only an embryo for about 6 weeks - they say eight but I don't know about that. Unfortunately it takes 4 - 6 weeks for someone to realise they've missed their period, so ... you catch my drift.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Whoa this is certainly a broad sweeping brush.

It is. I was using the same stereotype that Calahan was. The official views of the US Republican party are also helpful in sweeping with such a brush.

Mena

In fairness, they're getting closer and closer to us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeTfW8-dCNE